Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return values (agent_id, API key), warns the key is 'shown ONCE — store it', and explains the earnings/ledger/withdrawal model. It does not cover idempotency (re-registering an existing agent) or rate limits, leaving a modest gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the 'START HERE' directive; the one-time API key warning and the earnings model each carry distinct, necessary information. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Because there is no output schema, the description rightly explains what comes back (agent_id, API key) and what to do with it. It is nearly complete for a registration tool, missing only edge-case behavior such as re-registration or key recovery.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so format constraints (3-64 chars, allowed characters) and the framework/description fields are already fully documented. The prose adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Register as a WattCoin agent') and explicitly positions itself as the entry point with 'START HERE'. The onboarding framing, plus the note that no wallet is required, makes it instantly distinguishable from siblings like agent_me, claim_task, and submit_task.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear downstream routing: the returned key is used 'with claim_task / submit_task', and it names prerequisites ('no Solana wallet or WATT needed'). It stops short of saying when NOT to call it (e.g. whether an existing agent should re-register), so it lacks an explicit exclusion.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.